Protecting the Legacy: Report of the Committee on the Use of Outdoor
Resources
Volume 1: Results of the Public Consultation
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 The Consultation Process
1.3 The Government Response
1.4 Report Format
2.0 PRINCIPLES
2.1 The Statement of Principles
2.2 Conservation and Sustainability
2.3 The Consistent Application of Principles
2.4 Privatization
2.5 An Outdoor Bill of Rights
2.6 Other Principles and Considerations
3.0 OUTDOOR USE
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The Value of the Outdoors
3.2 The Value of Economic Development Initiatives
3.3 Striking a Balance
4.0 THE MANAGEMENT OF
OUTDOOR USE
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Roles
4.3 Education
4.4 Consultation
4.5 Planning
4.6 Enforcement
4.7 Monitoring
4.8 Funding
5.0 OUTDOOR USE ISSUES
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Regulations, Licenses and Quotas
5.3 Winter and Sunday Hunting.
5.4 Sportfishing and Hunting Lodges
5.5 Parks and Reserves
5.6 All Terrain Vehicles, Snowmobiles and Seadoos
5.7 Other Issues
Appendices:
A1 Presentations
A2 Briefs Submitted
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
During 1998, a number of groups and individuals across Newfoundland and Labrador
expressed concern about the Provinces outdoor resources and policies and practices
related to their management. The issues of concern included access to rivers, the leasing
of parks to private companies, the use of ATVs to retrieve game, river specific licensing,
watershed management, the construction of outfitters lodges, salmon licenses and
quotas, and the perceived privatization of the outdoors.
In response, the Government established a Committee of Ministers and Members of the
House of Assembly to hold consultations and discuss these concerns directly with the
people of the Province. This initiative was intended to solicit input on, and hopefully
establish consensus, with respect to these issues. In particular, the Government was
concerned to ensure that its legislation, policies and practices preserve access to the
outdoors for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, while allowing other uses that support
both recreational activities and economic development. This report, in two volumes,
provides a summary and synthesis of these consultations and the Committees
recommendations.
1.2 The Consultation Process
The consultation sought to:
hear from all individuals and groups with concerns about
the protection of outdoor
resources and the need to ensure their continued enjoyment and benefit for the citizens of
the Province; and
build a consensus on how to properly preserve access to
the outdoors for the people of the Province, protect and preserve outdoor resources and,
where appropriate, allow other legislated uses that support both recreational activities
and economic development.
The consultation was undertaken by the Committee, chaired by Development and Rural
Renewal Minister Beaton Tulk and included: Forest Resources and Agrifoods Minister Kevin
Aylward: Tourism, Culture and Recreation Minister Sandra Kelly (subsequently Minister
Charles Furey); Government Services and Lands Minister Ernest McLean; Environment and
Labour Minister Oliver Langdon; Mr. Robert Mercer - M.H.A., Humber East; Mr. Graham Flight
- M.H.A., Windsor-Springdale (subsequently Yvonne Jones - M.H.A. Cartwright, LAnse
au Claire); and Mr. Ralph Wiseman - M.H.A., Topsail.
The consultation process used three mechanisms whereby interested citizens could
express their views:
attending a public meeting;
presenting a written brief; and
completing the Your Views section of the
discussion paper.
The consultation process involved public meetings at 18 different locations across the
Province, including 13 on the Island and five in Labrador. The first were held in
Springdale and Harbour Breton on September 23, 1998, the last in Ferryland on October 19,
1998. In total, approximately 585 persons attended the hearings, ranging from a high of
about 150 in Pasadena to a low of two in LAnse au Clair. The average attendance per
meeting was 33 persons.
Ninety (90) briefs or other written submissions (including the Your Views
sections of the discussion paper) were presented to the Committee. In addition, detailed
summaries were prepared of the proceedings at the meetings. In total, these materials
cover hundreds of pages, providing a comprehensive review of outdoor use issues and the
attitudes and opinions of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with respect to them.
1.3 The Government Response
Recognizing the levels of concern and interest among stakeholder groups and the general
public, the Committee has deliberated on the findings from the consultation. Specifically,
the Committee on the Use of Outdoor Resources has reviewed the input received during the
outdoor use consultation process and discussed at length the issues involved. This has led
to the development of a series of conclusions and decisions that are summarized in Volume
2 of the report Committee Recommendations. They address many of the more important issues
related to the use of outdoor resources and respond to many of the concerns expressed in
briefs and presentations to the Committee.
However, not all of the issues and concerns can be addressed at this time. Many of them
are complex and overlapping, and some are highly contentious. The Committee feels that
this will require that Government subject them to further review and deliberation. There
may also, in some cases, be a need for further consultation, scientific research or
inter-governmental negotiation.
1.4 Report Format
The main sections of this volume of the report provide a synthesis of the issues
discussed at the public hearings and in the briefs and other materials submitted to the
Committee. They are based on hundreds of pages of briefs and other materials and seeks to
present a relatively short and easily read summary which assisted the Committee. While the
report makes reference to, and sometimes quotes from, particular submissions and
presentations, this is not intended to indicate that these submissions or comments are
more important than others. They have been selected because they are generally
representative of the discussion in the meetings and briefs and contribute to the overall
picture of public attitudes and concerns.
The rest of the material in this report discusses first, in Section 2.0, underlying
Principles in the use of outdoor resources. The discussion paper Consultation
Process on the Use of Outdoor Resources begins with a statement of the
Governments principles. This section reviews the thoughts expressed by speakers, and
in briefs, respecting these and other principles which should guide our use and management
of outdoor resources. Topics covered include the statement of principles, conservation and
sustainability, the consistent application of principles, privatization, and an outdoor
bill of rights.
This is followed, in Section 3.0, by discussion of the relationship between Outdoor Use
and Economic Development, a major theme in briefs and presentations to the Committee. This
includes consideration of the value of the outdoors, the value of economic development
initiatives, and how we can strike a balance between economic and other interests.
Section 4.0 considers The Management of Outdoor Use, another important theme in the
consultation. In the discussion paper, the Committee asked not only about management
principles, but also the roles community groups should play in, and whether users should
pay for, management. This section reviews the opinions expressed by speakers and in briefs
with respect to the following management issues: roles; education; consultation; planning;
enforcement; monitoring; and funding.
Section 5.0 discusses Outdoor Use Issues. It provides a review of a range of matters
related to the effects and regulation of activity, with particular consideration given to
input respecting: regulations, licenses and quotas; winter and Sunday hunting;
sportfishing and hunting lodges; parks and reserves; and all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles
and seadoos.
Lastly, Volume 2: Committee Recommendations, describes the Committees conclusions
and recommendations with respect to the input received through this public consultation
process. These recommendations address many of the more important issues related to the
use of outdoor resources and respond to many of the concerns expressed in briefs and
presentations to the Committee.
This report also includes appendices which provide background information about the
consultation process.
2.0
PRINCIPLES
2.1 The Statement of Principles
The starting point for any discussion of the use of outdoor resources must be a
consideration of underlying principles. In recognition of this, the discussion paper
Consultation Process on the Use of Outdoor Resources begins with a statement
of those Government principles.
Statement of Principles
- Government believes, first and foremost, that our outdoor resources exist for the use
and enjoyment of all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.
- It is not and never will be this Governments policy to privatize the outdoors.
Government believes access to our natural resources
must be maintained, but not at the expense of conservation and sustainability. These
principles are fundamental and not open to debate.
Government believes it is possible to develop our tourism
and economic potential through the use of our outdoor resources, but such developments
will not compromise access and use by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
- Government is committed to negotiating equitable land claims agreements with our
Aboriginal peoples, settlement of which may affect management of outdoor resources in
specific areas of the Province.
A large number of participants who took part in the consultation process expressed
their support for these principles. For example, the Citizens Outdoor Rights
Alliance notes that these principles closely mirror their own founding principles. For the
College of the North Atlantic the principles are both progressive and
achievable, while for Gary Sargent, President of the Atlantic Quest Corporation, the
solution to our relationship with the land and the resources is both simple and embodied
in the Governments statement of principles.
The Emerald Zone Corporation supports government principles as outlined in the
opening statement of principles. Freedom of access to the outdoors for recreational and
household uses are seen as inherent rights of Newfoundlanders, almost as a form of freedom
of expression.
2.2 Conservation and Sustainability
There is other general support for the Governments principles throughout the
consultation process. In particular, there is a strong emphasis on conservation and
sustainability, with conservation specifically discussed in 13 (or 14 per cent) of the
briefs submitted.
The guiding principles for management of our outdoor resources must be
conservation and sustainable development. Any other principle that goes ahead of these is
a recipe for over-exploitation and destruction of our fish and wildlife outdoor
resources. (Labrador Outfitters Association Inc.)
For the Bay St. George South Area Development Association conservation should be
priority #1, and we should not compromise this in any way... All resources should be
harvested at sustainable levels only. Anything less is irresponsible and a betrayal of the
responsibility we have to generations to come. John Sheppard of Gander, believes
that conservation is not only an important principle but the only principle that
should guide the management of our outdoor resources, while for the Humber
Environment Action Group Conservation is Key.
Similarly, Warren Blanchard of Corner Brook thinks conservation must be the
priority when managing our natural resources, and Bruce Moores, in a letter
submitted by the Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystem Corporation, is encouraged to
see the emphasis placed on conservation throughout the (consultation) document... it is
definitely a principle that is fundamental and must not be open to debate.
There is similar support for the principle of sustainability. For example, for Fred
Holloway of the Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystem Corporation all of the resources
must be managed at a sustainable level. The Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. calls
on the Government to insure that access to and use of the natural resources of the
Province is consistent with the principles of sustainable development and the need to
maintain the economic, as well as the social and environmental, benefits derived from our
natural resources. (The relationship between outdoor use and economic development is
discussed in Section 3.0, below.)
2.3 The Consistent Application of Principles
While there is much support for these principles, a number of briefs question the
Governments credibility, given what they see as inconsistencies between the
principles and its actions. Having noted the similarities between their own and the
governments principles, the Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance goes on to ask:
Why then do we find ourselves drawn into public debate with our own government
leaders when our guiding principles are so similar? The answer is that our government has
not applied these principles very consistently in the past, and now the public believes
that these principles will not provide the protection they are meant to provide in the
future.
Different presenters and briefs argue that each of the following are evidence of a gap
between the governments principles and actions:
the privatization of provincial parks;
the increased hunting quotas for non-resident hunters;
the introduction of community watershed management;
the construction of fishing lodges on popular rivers;
access fees at Portland Creek;
the increased commercialization of salmon rivers, including
additional licenses and fall fishery extensions;
the threat of new fees, such as trout, river specific or
zonal salmon license fees and the conservation stamp;
the Star Lake and other hydro-electric projects;
the granting of land rights to companies for forestry and
transmission lines;
the loss of recreational rights to fish cod; and
governments alleged adoption of the LGL report.
The greatest concern is that the principles declared will be compromised by
economic development, especially vested interests represented by natural resources
corporations, such as the pulp and paper, mining, hydro-electric and construction sectors.
There is a deep mistrust that in spite of repeated assurances from government, the rights
which cannot be sold will be abrogated in other ways detrimental to the public
interest. (Emerald Zone Corporation)
Similar concerns lead the Protected Areas Association to propose, as its Recommendation
#1 to the Committee: that the government follow through on its commitments by making
conservation its first priority in all its activities and policies. Others, as is
discussed below, call for the adoption of an Outdoors Bill of Rights.
2.4 Privatization
The focus of much of the concern about the governments principles is the
contentious issue of privatization. It is discussed by 28 (or 31 per cent) of the 90
briefs. Presenters and briefs are concerned about both privatization itself and a range of
other topics which are seen as being related to or, in some cases, synonymous with,
privatization. These topics include land ownership, commercialization, access restrictions
and watershed management.
Some speakers and briefs, such as that of the Marine & Mountain Zone Board, call
for the government to maintain its stand that it is not, and never will be, the
Governments policy to privatize the outdoors. Others, such as the Bay St.
George South Area Development Association, express the opinion that many of the
accusations of government privatization are extreme to the point of being
ludicrous, distorting the realities of the situation. They cite the privatization of
parks and community watershed management in this regard. And for Gene Manion of Main River
Lodge Ltd., allegations of the privatization of rivers appear to be a smoke screen
by a small vocal group of self-interested anglers so as to restrict tourist
development.
But a large number of other groups are sceptical of the governments statement
that it will not privatize the outdoors. The responses of the Humber Environment Action
Group and Doug Dalton are representative of this position:
While this statement is "legally
correct", it is clearly inconsistent with the plain facts of the matter. After all,
Government continually assigns exclusive rights to certain outdoor resources on Crown
land: cottage development permits, mineral rights, hydroelectric development permits,
timber cutting rights, etc.. If these are not ways in which the outdoors are being
privatized, then what is? (Humber Environment Action Group)
If the present government really believes this,
why is (it) encouraging in piecemeal fashion to have large areas of land to be privatized
for various reasons? (Doug Dalton, Little Catalina)
For many participants in the consultation, watershed management is synonymous with
privatization, and it commonly appears among lists of evidence that there is a government
move towards privatizing the outdoors. In the words of Jed Sampson of Port au Port:
handing our rivers and other outdoor resources over to organizations like SPAWN, the
outfitters, ASF, community watershed management, ACOA, etc., is privatization, whether it
be in the form of leasing rights, direct control or outright selling.
However, the Humber River Model River Planning Corporation notes that one of its goals
is to ensure that the resources of the watershed are not privatized by way of
permitting exclusive use to one person(s) or any ownership of such resources. Equality of
access will be promoted by the Model River Group. Similarly, the Gander River
Management Association states that it will continue to fight to ensure that not one
square inch of the River or the public easement is privatized. And the Salmonid
Association of Eastern Newfoundland has as one of its proposed Guiding Principles for
community watershed management: Privatization: An absolute NO to any form of
ownership for any part of the waterways including shoreline buffer zones. This includes
any ownership by the CWM {Community Watershed Management} group of our wilderness
resources.
As the Marine & Mountain Zone Corporation indicates, much confusion and
debate has attended discussion as to whether community management of wilderness
resources leads to their privatization. In the opinion of the Corporation this
should not be the case, and it recommends that the government make a concerted
effort to clarify the differences and... inform residents properly about the concept
of Community Management.
2.5 An Outdoor Bill of Rights
A number of presenters and briefs want the Governments commitment to the
principles expressed in the consultation paper strengthened through the adoption of a Bill
of Rights or similar legislation. In total, 11 briefs express support for an Outdoor Bill
of Rights, with a draft Bill being presented to the Committee. Groups strongly advocating
its adoption include the Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance, Newfoundland and Labrador
Wildlife Federation and the Bay of Islands Rod and Gun Club.
There is an imminent need to bring in legislation that will protect our rights to
use and enjoy the outdoors as we have for three hundred years. What better way to begin
this process than the introduction and passage of an Outdoor Bill of Rights, wherein all
the various users and management bodies will be governed by the same rules. (Donald
J. Blackmore, Gander)
Such a Bill of Rights is seen as preserving traditional access to all public
lands and waters for outdoor recreational uses, such as fishing hunting, touring and
gathering wild foods (Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance), thereby assuring the
continuation of our unique culture and quality of life for ourselves and future
generations(Donald J. Blackmore). It is also thought that it would: clarify
the ground rules for all participants. Investors would be able to make business decisions
based on a stable and predictable situation where everyone knows where they stand
(Owen Myers)
In a related approach, The Marine & Mountain Zone Corporation notes that Finland
has established parameters in legislation to ensure its citizens rights to use the
outdoors and suggests that the government investigate this initiative.
And yet others note that all rights must be balanced by responsibilities. For Gary
Sargent of the Atlantic Quest Corporation Inc., rights have to be balanced with a
respect for the land and preservation of the resource, while the brief from the
Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. notes that the use of outdoor resources is a
privilege, not a "God given right".
2.6 Other Principles and Considerations
Presenters and briefs discuss a range of other principles and considerations respecting
the use of outdoor resources. Examples include:
The Bay St. George South Area Development Association
identifies four core principles: conservation, equal affordable access, community input
and economic development.
Don Higdon of Corner Brook believes that public
access to waters and lands should be guaranteed and should always be first and foremost
ahead of any form of private control.
Warren Blanchard of Corner Brook argues that
Newfoundlanders should be main users of the outdoors.
The Humber Environment Action Group calls for open,
transparent and accountable decision-making and for equal (but not necessarily easy)
access. It also recommends that the Government adopt the Precautionary Principle,
building it into the provinces Biodiversity Strategy and incorporating it in
all relevant resource management policies. The Precautionary Principle simply means that
whenever there is uncertainty, the prudent resource manager will lean to the side of
conservation and favour management decisions that will not foreclose future options. Had
this principle been applied in fisheries management in the 1980s we all know that things
would look very different today.
The Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador
believes all citizens must continue to have equal rights of "innocent access" to
all Crown lands and their outdoor resources, where innocent use is any use that does not
substantially modify the area. This would include hiking, canoeing and backpacking, but
not such things as building a cottage, cutting an all terrain vehicle or snowmobile trail,
logging or clear cutting, and building roads or dams.
It also recommends that any quotas, limits or other
controls upon access to Crown lands and to harvesting of renewable resources... must apply
equally to all residents of the province.
3.0
OUTDOOR USE
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Discussion of the relationship between the use of the outdoors and economic development
is a major theme in briefs and presentations to the Committee. It is raised in 42 (or 47
per cent) of the written submissions.
Only a small number consider economic development to be an important principle in
regulating the outdoors. However, many spoke or wrote of the importance of establishing a
balance between conservation, recreation and economic development. This includes
discussion of the economic value of the outdoors and the best ways of balancing recreation
and economic development.
3.1 The Value of Outdoor Activities
Outdoor activities make a very important contribution to the economy of Newfoundland
and Labrador. The Gander River Management Association cites the case of the Gander River,
estimating that is supports 120 direct jobs, nine outfitter lodges and three service guide
businesses. The GRMA itself has around 24 seasonal employees and spends $250,000 to
$300,000 locally annually. And, according to Gene Manion of Main River Lodge Ltd., the
outfitting industry contributes in excess of $25 million each year to the economy,
and provides in excess of 10,000 part-time and spin-off jobs... Our one lodge contributed
over $200,000 to the local economy in 1998.
However, others argue that even these types of economic assessments commonly undervalue
the outdoors and that, in particular, the economic contribution of resident rather than
non-resident hunters, anglers and outdoors-people. John Sheppard of Gander notes that
the economic returns to government by way of taxes on goods sold for local
recreational use of the outdoors is significant.
Resident anglers and hunters buy practically 100 per cent of their supplies
locally, thereby supporting local businesses and paying 15 per cent tax... and they pay
income tax, property tax, sales taxes etc. 365 days of the year. Compare this to the
non-resident who buys nothing locally, and perhaps as much as 75 per cent of his fee goes
south with the outfitter who, after paying his cook and guide a few cents, closes shop and
goes away for the winter. (Reg Nichols, Corner Brook)
Donald J. Blackmore (Gander) notes that outdoor recreation activities contribute well
over $100 millions to the Treasury every year, and that 95 per cent of this money
comes from resident use of our outdoors, and only 5 per cent from non-resident sources...
While non-resident hunters and fishers do contribute new money to the economy... because
of the major transportation problems the Island of Newfoundland at least will, for the
foreseeable future, experience a limited and probably modest growth in non-resident use of
our outdoors.
For others, there is an undervaluation of outdoor resources because conventional
analyses ignore some uses (e.g. subsistence, non-consumptive recreation and resident use)
which do directly contribute to the economy. This is an especially important consideration
in respect of aboriginals and residents of Labrador: for countless generations
(recent European and indigenous populations) local residents have utilized various
resources... This resource use (both consumptive and non-consumptive) can be considered in
the context of domestic/traditional/historic/ subsistence or similar terminology. In any
sense, it implies a degree of economic importance particularly to nearby residents which
is either overlooked or discounted as insignificant. Recent studies have indicated
considerable importance to this sector of the economy, particularly in northern
areas. (John and Juanita Thomas, Happy Valley/Goose Bay)
Others spoke of the present and potential future value of our wilderness areas:
North America and Europe have very little pristine wilderness remaining except for
National Parks. If we had the vision and the determination to restrict development of our
remaining natural areas, there will be a significant growing demand for these areas as
tourist destinations... Resource user conflict must be seriously addressed. Short-term
gain by industrial expansion must be restricted in the unspoiled areas so as to reap
larger long-term economic benefit that these areas will produce if left in pristine
condition (Gene Manion, Main River Lodge Ltd). Similarly, the Natural History
Society of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that wilderness is becoming
increasingly rare worldwide so if we preserve ours, we will have a real market advantage.
We could become the "temperate Costa Rica".
However, while many argued that economic assessments commonly undervalued the outdoors,
others believe the economic significance of much hunting and gathering activity is
overstated, and that it should largely be considered recreational rather than economic.
For example, Nelson Bennet of Pasadena believes that: since direct harvesting of our
natural resources, such as killing wild animals, cutting wood on Crown land or catching
fish can no longer be considered necessary for maintenance of living in this Province...
such exercises are best deemed recreation and pleasure for which local participants should
be prepared to pay. The gathering of food, wood, berries, and the like has changed to more
sophisticated ways to make savings in an economic way a myth with the use of pickups,
ATVs, motors, gasoline, chain saws, fishing gear and the like.
There are those who say Newfoundlanders require moose, trout, etc. for protein in
their diet. We say "Get Real"! Moose meat is not cheap meat nor is trout cheap
fish when you factor in all the costs associated with a hunting or fishing
expedition. (Bay St. George South Area Development Association)
In other discussion of the economic value of the outdoors, the Protected Areas
Association states that, in its opinion, environmental stability and economic stability
are two sides of the same coin. The Association also describes how protected
areas can provide many direct economic benefits. And the Irish Loop Regional Economic
Development Board indicates that it sees real economic potential in its protected areas
and parks, with the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve being its most significant tourism
attraction.
3.2 The Value of Economic Development Initiatives
There is also discussion of the value of various economic development initiatives which
may damage or restrict access to the outdoors. The Emerald Zone Corporation believes
questions must be asked about the benefits from such past initiatives as land
concessions given to the Reid Company, the pulp and paper companies and hydro-electric
developments and other corporations which received concessions in exchange for the
generation of economic growth... The historic position of trading environment for jobs
has, in the long term, not produced the expected jobs and left a legacy of a despoiled
environment, a closed cod fishery, a depleted forestry, polluted and contaminated areas,
and a diminished inland fishery. In particular, the depredation of the cod fishery
is the tragic result of unrestrained commercial interests to the detriment of the
public good.
Donald J. Blackmore condemns hydro-electric projects as both representing a
privatization of outdoor resources and for its destruction of our rivers, and
David Tilley notes how they cause the flooding of large amounts of pristine shoreline
habitat. The Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland notes that currently over
60 per cent of Newfoundlands watersheds are being utilized in some form for the
purpose of hydro generation which results in the destruction of such fish stocks as
the Atlantic Salmon; the lost revenues and employment opportunities are
incalculable. These concerns cause a number of those presenting to the Committee to
applaud the governments decision to suspend the development of further small hydro
projects.
Others question the benefits and prospective effects of hydro and other projects now in
the planning stages. For example, the Friends of the Grand River wonder about the future
economic benefits of Churchill Power Project considering the magnitude, permanent
damage, huge financial costs, questionable requirement in the advent of new energy
technology and future debt load to tax payers.
There are similar concerns about forestry, mining and other activities, both for their
direct effects and the fact that they involve the construction of roads that allow access
to remote areas. In respect of forestry, for example, in each of the past few years,
over 20,000 hectares of forest were harvested, mainly for pulp and mainly in pristine
areas, and in just the past two years many kilometres of new forest access roads were
constructed at a cost of more than $2.5 millions in public funds, each year opening up
more of our wilderness areas. (Protected Areas Association)
The Emerald Zone Corporation conclude that economic development must take the long
view: The pressure for jobs is unrelenting but the era of government concessions to
corporate interests is over... (there must be) a balance between conflicting users (which)
must first consider the sustainability of the resource rather than short-term economic
benefits.
3.3 Striking a Balance
The issue of balancing conservation with recreational and economic development uses of
outdoor resources is raised by the consultation paper, and it is discussed by large
numbers of presenters and briefs. All of them, in different ways, see a need to strike
such a balance. In the words of Happy Valley - Goose Bay resident Joe Goudie: The
insatiable demand for revenue must be balanced against the need and responsibility that we
have as world citizens to protect and nurture our wild resources and our many
cultures. In a related formulation, Don Higdon of Corner Brook stresses that:
economic development should be pursued, but not to the detriment of the rights of
the public.
Many, like the Labrador Metis Nation, feel that governments have not balanced the
peoples concerns over the environment with the economic benefits from
development. But there is a consensus that such a balance can be reached. As the Bay
St. George South Area Development Association put it: surely we have matured to a
point where we can all work together to develop our resources on a sustainable basis
without infringing on the traditional privileges of anyone. It is our firm belief that
working together, this can be accomplished.
While our outdoor resources are not the answer to all our economic problems, they
can contribute significantly to our economic well-being. We can develop our resources and
it can be done without infringing on traditional privileges. (Bay St. George South
Area Development Association)
Achieving such a balance is already a goal of a number of the groups involved in the
consultation. As Fred Holloway states on behalf of the Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystem
Corporation, our primary goal is to see our resources managed in a sustainable
manner, and we believe the area has lucrative employment and business opportunities for
our communities and still satisfy the local users, while the Irish Loop Regional
Economic Development Boards planning is based on achieving a balance between
the need to create opportunity in the region while respecting the natural
environment.
Many feel that such a balance can only be achieved through consultation and
cooperation. As Warren Blanchard of Corner Brook puts it: to achieve the balance of
competing users, Government must listen to the ideas and concerns expressed by the user
groups. These groups are the ones who are closest to the problems which exist in trying to
manage the resources. Through cooperation with all users - recreational and economic
development groups - a balance satisfactory to all should be attained.
4.0
THE MANAGEMENT OF
OUTDOOR USE
4.1 Introduction
Management is another important theme in the consultation. In the discussion paper,
government asks not only about management principles, but also the roles community groups
should play in, and whether users should pay for management. This section reviews the
opinions expressed by speakers and in briefs with respect to the following management
issues: roles; education; consultation; planning; enforcement; monitoring; and funding.
4.2 Roles
Much of the discussion of roles is concerned with the place of community groups in
resource management. There are strong differences of opinion, in large part along the
lines of the discussion of privatization and watershed management (see Section 2.2). Those
who regard these issues as problematic are most likely to have reservations about
devolving powers and responsibilities to the community level.
For those who support the empowerment of communities: management derived from the
community and stakeholders must replace the traditional central government approach. We
need major institutional reorganization at the policy level of government to ensure
responsiveness to local demand. Governments role will be to empower and enable our
communities to take over the responsibility of resource development and
conservation. (Yvonne Jones, M.H.A.)
The Labrador Metis Nation sees community-based management as being particularly
important to Aboriginal people: Management by the province has been for everybody
else, except the Labrador Metis, and it has been deplorable, leading to poor conditions in
our communities... Management must return to the land owners, the Metis and other
Aboriginal people of Labrador.
Predictably, community empowerment receives implicit or explicit support from numerous
local agencies which have already been given management responsibilities. This includes
the community watershed management authorities, whose approach is summarized in one of the
goals of the Humber River Model River Planning Corporation: The development and
implementation of a management strategy through consensus which outlines and encourages
co-operative local management of the river through shared responsibility, support and
promotion of stakeholder involvement in the management functions.
The key element here is the local management role, which the Gander River Management
Association claims provides a vital additional dimension to fish management - the
contribution of stewardship, local experience and expertise, while recognizing that
Government are the ultimate decision-makers. The Freshwater Alexander Bay
Ecosystems Corporation believes that local community management of the ecosystem has
many benefits, while for the Gander Bay Indian Band Council it is simply that
the users of the resource are the best managers.
But while there is support for a community role in management, there is no simple
answer to the question: what role should community groups play? Most seem to
agree with what Gary Sargent of the Atlantic Quest Corporation made explicit. He says that
before establishing the role it would be necessary to define community groups; are
we talking service clubs, user groups, business organizations, special interest
associations, etc.? All could have a role ranging from advisory to direct participation in
resource management.
Community groups can and should play a major role in the management of our
resources. However, it is critical that these groups be made up of a good cross-section of
all stakeholders, insuring all can have input into management. Special interest groups
would be part of the process. It is necessary to have a diverse group (to)... eliminate
the tendency we all have to make decisions on our own needs irrespective of others.
(Bay St. George South Area Development Association)
However, a number of other presentations and briefs express strong antipathy to the
delegation of powers to the community level. Bernard Rumbolt, president of the Bay St.
George Sports Hunting & Fishing Association, bluntly states that: self serving
people and community groups should and will not have control of our rivers.
Similarly, Doug Dalton of Little Catalina argues that community groups should not be
given any power in managing our resources other than the right to submit suggestions to
the government. Rather, communities should play a consultation role in the
management of resources, following a consistent set of guidelines from government.
(John Sheppard, Gander)
A large part of this concern arises because these community organizations are viewed as
undemocratic and secretive. Particular concern is expressed about delegation to watershed
management authorities and the Newfoundland and Labrador Inland Fish and Wildlife Advisory
Council. In the former case, "community based" watershed management is...
an example of stakeholder driven process which does not fairly represent the large
majority of users (Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance), and the Newfoundland and
Labrador Wildlife Federation and others insist that government not delegate its powers to
non-democratic watershed management authorities. In the case of the Advisory
Council, Citizens Against River Privatization considers it a secret council to deal
with government issues, and a number of other groups express similar sentiments.
Ecosystem Associations.., along with the Federal and Provincial governments, plan
to bring in "USER PAY". This is where YOU, the users of the area, pay a mini
bureaucracy to run all aspects of the out of door activities in the area, doing what the
federal and provincial governments are supposed to do. (Newfoundland and Labrador
Wildlife Federation)
Such concerns extend even to agencies which are otherwise supportive of community-based
approaches. They lead the Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, to
recommend that Government must draft legislation clearly defining the authority and
responsibilities to be granted to CWM groups. Others call for education initiatives
so that people better understand the intended role and function of these groups (see
Section 4.3).
In another discussions of roles, there are calls for the federal government to maintain
its constitutional obligations: protection is the heart of conservation. It is a
simple constitutional fact that inland fisheries is a federal responsibility... DFO must
not be allowed to abandon their constitutionally mandated responsibility. The federal
government has the budgetary resources to do the job, it is not something that the
Province should take on. (Owen Myers)
And others call for a better coordination of, leading to more consistent
decision-making by, the different levels of government. As Len Rich puts it: Two
branches of government - federal and provincial - are now responsible for fish management.
Very often the two are not synchronized or are not working together for the good of the
resource. Present consultative meetings are not effective. Requests for long term planning
and stable allocations have been largely ignored. Both branches must work together.
Better coordination is seen as including a need to consult and work with those with
different but related roles. For example, the East Coast Trail Association recognizes that
it is important that its work be coordinated with that of government. And, more generally,
the Newfoundland TRailway Council believes that its a question of
partnering at all levels, rather than the onus being placed entirely on the shoulders of
one or another agency or government department.
4.3 Education
There is a wide acknowledgement that there is a need for new and improved public
education with respect to the outdoors and outdoors activities. For example,
The Town of Bay de Verde recommends that the government
undertake a program of public education to increase an awareness of environmental
issues;
The College of the North Atlantic calls on the
government to adopt and support broad-based education as an efficient and effective
approach to improved management of the Provinces outdoor heritage. (Its own
community and continuing education initiatives include the Women in the Outdoor and Hunter
Education/Firearms Safety programmes); and
The Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystems Corporation
believes that there is a need for some mechanism for reaching the public with solid
facts on on-going ecology and conservation issues, pointing out the complexity of
these issues.
School programs are seen as being particularly important. Arthur King, Grand Falls,
thinks that the province would greatly benefit if our children and youth could
identify most of our plants, flowers and trees, as well as our fish, birds and wildlife...
(and) the rules and regulations concerning everyones responsibility to our outdoor
resources. He goes on to suggest that educational conservation officers...
visit schools, organizations and seniors... (to) talk and listen about the concerns and
benefits of outdoor resources.
In one current initiative, Western Newfoundland Model Forest thinks it has been
successful in enhancing students and, more importantly, teachers
understanding of natural resource management. This group has as one of its 1997 -
2002 goals to build the capacity in society for people to contribute effectively to
resource management. And most of the watershed management groups discuss the need to
inform the community, educational institutions, government and other interested agencies
about the concept and its benefits.
4.4 Consultation
There is widespread support for the present consultation process and consultation in
general. There are, in particular, many calls for government to consult further with all
stakeholders, and especially community groups, on issues of outdoor use. Indeed, for the
Bay St. George South Area Development Association, community input is one of
the four core principles for dealing with outdoor concerns: We believe it should be
government policy to work with community groups to provide an enhanced conservation and
protection program for our resources.
To achieve the balance of competing users, Government must listen to the ideas
and concerns expressed by the user groups. These groups are the ones who are closest to
the problems which exist in trying to manage the resources. Through cooperation with all
users - recreational and economic development - a balance satisfactory to all should be
attained. (Warren Blanchard, Corner Brook)
Some feel that the government has been doing a bad job in this area. For example, Jed
Sampson of Port au Port argues that the general public has been conveniently
excluded from any decision-making or even knowing what is going on. Others call for
greater consultation, including:
Jim Taylor of Pasadena, who thinks that as a
general policy (on natural resource issues) government should regularly use and support
open, principled discussions leading to fair consensus decisions;
John Sheppard of Gander, who believes: Communities
should play a consultation role in the management of resources following a consistent set
of guidelines from government;
Bonavista and Gander Citizens Against Privatization,
which recommends that the Government ask outdoors people to relate their experiences
and opinions.
The biggest issue of concern that The Marine & Mountain Zone Corporation
feels must be addressed... is communication between the government departments and the
general public. If residents of the province are going to buy into any major policy
changes... they must be thoroughly informed from the beginning about proposed changes.
This will... provide residents with proper information from the outset so that
misconceptions about changes can be limited (and)... give residents a chance to provide
input to the decision making process and allow for the development of policies that have
the support of the local population. Currently, there appears to be a definite lack of
communication between the government and the general public in regards to changes in the
way our outdoor resources are to be handled. This has been demonstrated in the reaction to
the community management of watershed areas and decision to extend the moose and caribou
hunting seasons.
As with some other issues discussed above, much of the discussion of consultation is
concerned with privatization and community watershed management. For example, Owen Myers
notes that there had been no public consultation respecting the privatization of
provincial parks or the introduction of the Gander River fishing license. However, the
Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystems Corporation considers that one of the merits of the
watershed management groups is that they provide a dynamic link between government
agencies and the public at large where information can be exchanged on a recorded,
organized and reliable basis. And the Salmonid Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador and of Eastern Newfoundland notes that its approved Guiding Principles for
Community Watershed Management require public consultation: Before any CWM plan can
come into effect, extensive public consultation must be held to include interests outside
the waterways. Changes to the original plan must undergo the same process.
Others also view the environmental assessment process as an important means of ensuring
appropriate public consultation. For example, the Protected Areas Association expresses
concern that the government is proposing to exempt government programs and policies from
environmental assessment, which would eliminate public input.
A number of other consultation issues are raised. For example, Gene Mercer thinks it
important that the Newfoundland and Labrador Inland and Wildlife Advisory Council meetings
be open to the public and that it produce frequent news releases so that the public can
know what the Council is doing. For Gene Manion of the Main River Lodge Ltd.
extensive public consultation and discussion must be entertained when land use
policies are being considered. And on a practical level, the Emerald Zone
Corporation recognizes the need for public input to be considered, especially over issues
of licensing and enforcement.
4.5 Planning
The presentations and briefs contain much general support for planning. This is seen as
a key element in protecting the outdoors and establishing a proper balance between
conservation, recreation and economic development. As Yvonne Jones, MHA, puts it:
development without proper planning could result in the eventual elimination of
(our) resources
Throughout the discussion there is concern that planning be democratic and serve
democratic ends. That is, the planning process should involve all stakeholders and that
the plans both reflect their interests and serve as a tool for ensuring their interests
are served. For example:
The Humber Environment Action Group recommends the
implementation of a land use plan that is regionally-based and developed in an open
and democratic fashion;
The Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance believes that there
is a need for a democratically produced land use plan which sets out clearly to
citizens the intended uses of sensitive tracts of public land... Without such a plan,
government departments are unable to objectively assess the wisdom of proposals for
developments, and decisions may be influenced by such factors as political connections and
pressure tactics; and
John and Juanita Thomas, Happy Valley/Goose Bay, believe
there is a requirement for planning from a holistic perspective and not a piecemeal
attempt by various departments to stake out turf. Support should be given to forums
already existing in terms of all government agencies participating, adequate funding,
appropriate information, suitable priority and of course staff. Integrated planning must
involve all concerned stakeholders and act in a consensual manner.
How can Government balance uses? I think its called "Land Use
Planning"! Proper planning is a deliberate attempt to decide on how things ought to
happen; and to do so with as broad a participation as is possible in order to set out what
is acceptable. (Gary Sargent, Atlantic Quest Corporation)
Planning is seen as being necessary in considering the management of a large number of
outdoors use issues. For example:
Rivers: There is much discussion of rivers planning
given the watershed management process. While those favouring this approach see it as
exemplary of a successful planning initiative, the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife
Federation and others are concerned that ecosystem associations will end up with complete
control over land use practices.
Forests: There is discussion of forest management plans,
with some feeling that the present process is insufficiently rigorous: Government
has so far refused to conduct a full environmental assessment of a single forest
management plan. It has established "Planning Teams" that attempt to address
so-called "stakeholder" concerns, but these processes lack the rigour of an
E.I.S." (Humber Environment Action Group). Others note the need for specific planning
initiatives respecting wood harvesting roads (David Tilley and Main River Lodge Ltd.) and
logging plans (David Tilley).
Protected and Natural Areas: The Natural History Society
of Newfoundland and Labrador recommends the completion of the system of Wilderness
Areas, Parks and other preserves and reserves, as per the Protected Areas System Plan, as
quickly as possible, while Jim Taylor of Pasadena supports a legislated
Natural Area System Plan... to protect representative and sensitive areas of our ecosystem
and historical sites.
Coastal Areas: Jon Lien, Portugal Cove, is greatly
concerned that Newfoundland and Labrador has no systematic lands use plan (or)
coastal management plans... the longer we wait to adopt and implement a system plan for
protecting natural areas the more difficult and impossible it will be to protect them.
Developments every day are proceeding on a case by case basis without comprehensive
planning or integrated environmental assessment.
Moose and Caribou: Gene Mercer recommends that the
government produce Annual Management Plans that are public and that detail
management policies, research, projects, changes, costs, etc.. With management plans and
the help of the (Newfoundland and Labrador Inland Fish and Wildlife Advisory) Council, we
will not have overpopulated/ starving moose and caribou.
Cottages: The Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited is
concerned that there is no system in place to plan or regulate recreational cottage
development in the Province... This type of widespread, ad hoc development will have a
lasting negative impact on future resource management.
Highways: The Labrador Outfitters Association thinks
that much thought and consideration is needed in planning the Trans Labrador Highway
(TLH): anything less may compromise the outdoor resources of the very people (the)
government is building the TLH to help.
There is a call for coordination in planning, not least between the federal and
provincial governments. In the context of a discussion of their roles, Len Rich notes that
requests for long term planning and stable allocations have been largely ignored.
Both branches must work together. Furthermore, he notes, management plans are
delivered on an ad hoc basis from year to year. Lastly, the Humber Natural History
Society calls for land-use plans to recognize importance of non-consumptive uses of land
related to the study and enjoyment of the natural environment.
4.6 Enforcement
The briefs and presentations reflect a strong consensus that there is a need for more
effective enforcement of regulations. This is seen as important so as to preserves the
resource, reduce poaching and ensure equity of hunting and fishing opportunity. Reductions
in poaching are seen as being a much superior of maintaining resources than limiting
access by legitimate fishers and hunters. And fines can be used to support enforcement and
other management initiatives.
The discussion of enforcement is largely focused on fishing, with few specific
references to hunting. It is generally thought that there is a need to improve the
enforcement of fishing regulations. In the opinion of Fred Holloway of the Freshwater
Alexander Bay Ecosystems Corporation: at one time we had a force of guardians that
probably was close to adequate, but now the area lacks in resources in manpower and
expenses in the enforcement sector (which) has become close to non-existent. For
Owen Myers, writing of the need for a Bill of Rights, there is a need to spend money
on the real protection of salmon and trout in the form of more river guardians hired
for a longer season and helicopter support to quickly transport them to poaching
hotspots. The Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation is among the other
groups that call for more enforcement on salmon rivers, while the Exploits River
Management Association notes a similar need re. trout fishing. Maura Hanrahan notes that
the need for more guardians on rivers may require that the federal government be forced to
live up to its constitutional responsibilities.
As has been discussed above, various groups oppose watershed management initiatives.
Some, like the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation, see it as a means of down
loading, not least removing from government the need to provide wardens. Others, including
Owen Myers and Rick Bouzan, note that while government is delegating powers to watershed
management corporations, they have no enforcement powers. However, the Town of Appleton
believes the Gander River Management Association has had success in addressing enforcement
issues.
A number of other enforcement issues are raised. For example, Bob Peters of St.
Johns complains that enforcement of regulations on the personal use fishery is not
necessary and making criminals of ordinary citizens, while Arthur King
believes that there is a need for stronger action respecting illegal cabin construction.
The Town of Bay de Verde see a need to enforce all terrain vehicle (ATV) regulations,
while the Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador recommends that the
enforcement of regulations put in place to protect and preserve areas or species must be
consistent. Cabin construction, logging or domestic wood cutting, cutting or making ATV or
snowmobile trails or roads, etc. in violation of regulations should be severely
punished.
Lastly, the Humber Environment Action Group notes that enforcement is not only an issue
with respect to the activities of individual hunters, anglers, ATV riders and other
citizens. In line with this, it proposes effective fines for littering and
environmental infractions in road-building, mineral exploration, mining, hydro
developments, logging, etc..
4.7 Monitoring
As with enforcement, the main discussions of monitoring focus on our rivers and fishing
activity. In particular:
The Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystems Corporation
believes local river conditions could be monitored by knowledgeable locals provided the
necessary expertise through watershed management groups. He suggests this might allow
different pools to be closed at different times;
The Bonavista and Gander Citizens Against Privatization
argue that it will be necessary to acquire the latest monitoring technology so as to get a
true full season count of returning salmon;
The Humber River Model River Planning Corporation,
concerned particularly about the limited understanding of the Atlantic Salmon stocks, has
as one of its goals to devise a management strategy which will provide for accurate
baseline studies including improved stock assessment to provide information to assess
impact on stocks and accountability for negative environmental impacts;
The Labrador Outfitters Association notes that
with no resident trout license, we know little about the quantity of the resource
being harvested and less about what is being left for reproduction and
sustainability and
The Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland agrees
that a trout license would be an inexpensive means of providing data (on the state
of the stocks and fishing effort) while at the same time aiding policy-makers in
developing an effective trout management plan.
However, there is recognition of the need to monitor other outdoor resources. For
example, the East Coast Trail Association writes about the effectiveness of volunteer
custodians, who report on problems and allow rapid corrective action. And the Irish Loop
Regional Economic Development Board discuss the need similar protection at Mistaken Point
fossil site.
4.8 Funding
The discussion of funding is mainly concerned with user pay and what, if any,
activities might appropriately paid for by the users of the outdoors. It also includes
discussion of funding mechanisms and the roles of governments and the private-sector in
paying for management and other activities.
Most of the groups and individuals consulted think it is reasonable to expect users to
contribute. For example:
It is not unreasonable for those of us who harvest
moose, rabbit, fish, etc. pay a fee to cover the cost that results from the privilege to
harvest these resources. (Bay St. George South Area Development Association)
User pay should be applied, in principle, for all
recreational activities managed by the Provincial Government (Nelson W. Bennett,
Pasadena)
The majority of Newfoundlanders do not mind paying
a fee for the privilege of accessibility to hunt, fish or just to enjoy our outdoor
resources. (Exploits River Management Association)
However, there is recognition that others should also pay. For example, the Emerald
Zone Corporation recommends that while outdoor users should generally be expected to
pay for conservation and management,.. the entire costs... should not be paid by
individuals paying licenses. More should be expected of the corporate sector in terms of
re-forestation, site reclamation and environmental protection.
It is not unreasonable for those of us who harvest moose, rabbit, fish, etc. to
pay a fee to cover the cost that results from the privilege to harvest these resources. We
must also bear in mind that if we didnt want to harvest these resources, there would
be no need for conservation and management. The fact that we do means there has to be a
system in place to collect, compile and evaluate data in order to manage these resources
at sustainable levels. In our opinion, those who harvest the resources should pay a
license fee to cover these costs. A percent of these revenues should go directly back to
the community to allow the full participation by all stakeholders. As well, paper
companies and mining operations should pay a reasonable royalty on the resource they
harvest and, once again, a percentage should go directly to the community. (Bay St.
George South Area Development Association)
Whilst there is this support for user pay, there is concern that the costs might prove
excessive for some. For example, the Battle Harbour Regional Development Association notes
that
the extent to which activities are licensed, and the monetary value of each
license, will place financial limitations on some Labradorians. Individuals living on a
fixed income who rely on outdoor resources to feed their families will be especially hard
hit by these initiatives.
However, others point out how inexpensive outdoors activities are compared to other
forms of recreation. For example, the Humber River Model River Planning Corporation argues
that a round of golf if you are not a member can cost up to $25. Skiing at one of
the many ski areas in Newfoundland can cost up to $30 per day. A trip in a sightseeing
boat... can cost $24 a trip. A tank of gas for your snowmobile is not inexpensive. For
Gods sake, a dozen beer costs almost the same as a yearly salmon license... (And)
most anglers now pay twice as much for a floating fishing line as they pay for their
annual angling license. For the Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador the
bottom line, as expressed in its Guiding Principles, is: Reasonable Cost: The cost
to fish ALL rivers (including all CWM rivers) in this province must remain within the
reasonable means of all residents.
However, some groups and individuals reject user pay. The Citizens Outdoor Rights
Alliance is opposed to the imposition of any new or increases in existing ones...
the poorly reasoned "user pay" philosophy which seems to be creeping into
governance of our outdoor resources should be replaced with a "universal access"
philosophy, to guarantee that all our citizens can enjoy the Newfoundland outdoors.
Instead, the government should use tax monies to manage our resources fairly for
all. And the Bay St. George Sports Hunting & Fishing Association argues that
Newfoundland and Labradorians have already paid more than their fair share in
conservation, whether it be freshwater, salt water, on land or in the air.
Similarly, the Citizens Against River Privatization sees the conservation stamp
and trout license as just another tax and the average Newfoundlander is already
taxed to death. For the Sandwich Bay Watershed Management Authority: taking
the present game and recreational fishing licenses and putting the proceeds directly into
resource management could be a much more palatable source of revenue than a new user
fee.
Part of the concern here is the cost, but part is the nature of the agencies which
receive and use the funding. Gary Sargent of the Atlantic Quest Corporation objects to
user fees not because there could not be a place for them in the scheme of things;
but because governments and/or their bureaucracies have seized on them with a vengeance...
to retain programs not to serve public interests. And the Bay St. George Sports
Hunting and Fishing Association strongly objects to the Newfoundland And Labrador
Snowmobile Federation selling permits for access to a trail near Stephenville.
The presenters and briefs also include strong objections to river specific license or
access fees (by, for example, Owen Myers, Rick Bouzan and the Salmonid Association of
Eastern Newfoundland), whether charged by watershed management groups or, as at Portland
Creek, private companies and individuals. And Gordon E. Cooper, President of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation, expresses strong objection to the fact that
currently not one cent of money collected for the salmon license goes to the
protection of salmon.
As far as the Town of Bay de Verde is concerned increased fees (i.e. for small
game and trout licenses) should be made available for the exclusive purpose of initiating
increased enforcement efforts. However, the Bay St. George South Area Development
Association recommends that license fees be used to cover the costs of collecting,
compiling and evaluating data needed to manage resources at sustainable levels.
The discussion of the funding of management activities also includes consideration of
the appropriate roles for the federal and provincial governments. For example, Owen Myers
believes the federal government has the budgetary resources to (manage inshore
fisheries), it is not something that the province should take on. And the Bay St.
George South Area Development Association considers that:
it is incumbent on the federal government to put
funding in place to manage (the trout) resource;
the provincial government should put funds in place to
support the development of the Trans Canada Trail; and
governments must provide adequate funding to
conserve and manage outdoor resources from general revenue. This would mean the cuts
having to stop and money being put back into the system.
Among other funding-related comments:
B. A. Hammett, St. Johns, notes that rescue
operations are expensive, and recommends that the government investigate requiring people
to pay a substantial amount of money, before they get their permit/visa to
cover initial rescue costs;
the Humber Environment Action Group proposes pollution
taxes on the sale of gas guzzlers and two-stroke engines; and
the Newfoundland TRailway Committee suggests that
recycling and gasoline taxes could be a source of revenues for trail maintenance purposes.
5.0
OUTDOOR USE ISSUES
5.1 Introduction
This section of the report reviews a number of outdoor use issues that arose during the
consultation. Many of them have been touched upon during the discussion of principles,
economic development and the management of outdoor use. However, this section provides
more detailed consideration of matters related to the effects and regulation of activity,
under the headings: Regulations, Licenses and Quotas; Winter and Sunday Hunting;
Sportfishing and Hunting Lodges; Parks and Reserves; All Terrain Vehicles, Snowmobiles and
Seadoos; and, Other Issues.
5.2 Regulations, Licenses and Quotas
This section discusses regulations, licenses and quotas related to both fish and game.
However, it does not consider the winter moose hunt and Sunday hunting (which are covered
in Section 5.3) or the many references to regulations, licenses and quotas being
symptomatic of a removal of rights, privatization and increased taxation (a topic covered
in Sections 2.0 and 4.8).
Some briefs consider issues common to both fishing and hunting. For example, the
Emerald Zone Corporation calls for review of the regulations concerning quotas, stating
that existing ones do not promote conservation. Regulations for fishing and hunting
need to be reviewed with respect to out-of-province Canadians. Current policies favour
local outfitters but is detrimental to the tourism industry; a balance needs to be
made. However, most of those presenting to the Committee deal with fishing and
hunting issues separately.
When it comes to fishing, many want more effective regulation of stocks that are seen
as being under considerable threat. In his brief, Austin Stewart of the Freshwater
Alexander Bay Ecosystem Corporation calls for more regulations which honestly target
the goal, rather than the shotgun approach. For example, this past summer the Terra Nova
River was closed to sea trout fishing because it was closed to salmon fishing. (However,)
the two species do not necessarily require the same kind of protection... In this case
more regulations not fewer would alleviate the problem and make happier more respectful
anglers. He recommends that sea trout fishing only occur in areas not frequented by
salmon, the use of only barbless trout flies and the rapid release of any salmon caught
accidentally.
Similar concerns about current management approaches are expressed by the Labrador
Outfitters Association Inc., which notes that the Atlantic salmon is presently
being managed predominantly by the individual license quota but this has proved to be less
than adequate in achieving conservation requirements. Therefore, when runs arent as
plentiful on the low end of the salmons natural cycle, rivers are closed, resident
users and outfitters are both upset and economic benefits for commercial outfitting users
are jeopardized for years to come. This problem can be easily overcome by allocations to
both resident and commercial outfitting users.
(Our members) made it clear that the 1998 salmon management plan was... a
political plan with no support from either a stock assessment or common sense point of
view. Several tourism operators said that it would seriously detract from their
businesses. It has also exacerbated difficulties between catch and retain vs. catch and
release anglers... It was not based on forecasted returns to our rivers, which take into
account the salmon spawning cycle. The experience this past summer confirmed all of these
criticisms. (Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance)
Len Rich proposes another management tool, the designation of sensitive watersheds as
"heritage waters". These would be subject to particularly stringent regulations
which can include retention of only one fish, total hook and release, fly fishing
only, using only barbless hooks and other specific conservation measures. (They) should
also be totally closed to ice fishing or designated as "hook and release" to
protect the resources before they are irreversibly lost.
There is considerable discussion about catch and release. By way of example:
Jed Sampson, Port au Port, considers that catch
and release and barbless hooks (have been imposed) against the will of the majority of
Newfoundland and Labrador anglers;
Dave Barker wants a stop to the catch and release of
Atlantic Salmon, not least because Newfoundlanders do not have enough training in it;
The Bonavista and Gander Citizens Against Privatization
has concerns about the mortality rates of released fish and calls for establishment of a
"reasonable" quota for anglers. It considers barbless hooks of value, but
wonders whether they are necessary when tags have not been filled, water temperatures are
not conducive to catch and release, and novice anglers are trying to catch their first
salmon; but
Main River Lodge Ltd. calls on the government to
encourage catch and release fishing.
There are also concerns about the trout population. Nelson W. Bennett is among those
who want increased management and enhancement of trout while, as has been seen above
(Section 4.7), the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland calls for the introduction
of a trout license in order to provide data on the stocks and fishing effort. Allan R.
Stein, president of the Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, also
believes we must greatly reduce our catch of native trout, especially in the more
accessible regions of the province. However, Peter Anstey objects to changes in the
winter trouting season which have reduced the possibility of ice fishing, and Peter J.
King calls for an extension of the ice fishing season.
Some think that there is a need for a new allocation system for fishing licenses. The
Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador believes it may be necessary to have
draws, similar to those for big game, for licenses and fishing days on the more popular
salmon rivers. As was seen in Section 2.6, it recommends that quotas, limits or other
controls upon access to crown lands and to harvesting of renewable resources apply equally
to all residents of the province, and it goes on to cite the caribou and moose draws as
an example of such a "fair system" of quotas and resource
allocation. And Main River Lodge Ltd. recommends that clubs and fishing
organizations use salmon pool rotation, a standard practice in the Maritimes.
A last fisheries topic raised by a number of those consulted is the personal use cod
fishery. Bob Peters, Rick Bouzan and others stress that it is, in Mr. Peters words,
not a villain and does not warrant regulation and policing which is
making criminals of ordinary citizens. However, while recognizing that the cod
fishery is under federal jurisdiction, Nelson W. Bennett suggests that the province
introduce an organized recreational fishery, with licenses granted to professional fishers
as operators and made available to all, and especially tourists, on a quota basis.
While the need to balance resident and non-resident allocations receives some
consideration relative to fishing, and underlies much of the commentary on the effects of
sportsfishing lodges (Section 5.4), it is much more to the fore in the discussion of
hunting quotas. Presenters like the Bonavista and Gander Citizens Against Privatization
and the Citizens Outdoor Rights Alliance are greatly concerned about the high proportion
of big game licenses allocated to outfitters. Similarly, John Sheppard is concerned about
increases to outfitters quotas for big game, and even an attempt to open one
area one month before the regular season for resident hunters, while Jed Sampson
recommends that no more permits or licenses should be issued to outfitters, and Don Higdon
proposes that outfitters only be given licenses for the more remote areas.
The Bill of Rights discussed by a number of presenters and briefs (see Section 2.5)
contains specific provisions on the issue of non-resident quotas; it would limit big game
outfitters to 10 per cent of the total harvestable moose and 25 per cent of the total
harvestable caribou. Owen Myers states that, in contrast with these figures, the actual
outfitter quota has reached as much as 40 per cent in some areas while resident
license allocations declined. However, the Main River Lodge Ltd. notes that
resident hunters have more big game licenses available per capita than any other
province (and) the success rate per big game hunter far exceeds any other province.
Many of those involved in the consultation are concerned about over-hunting. For
example, the Exploits River Management Association believes that some areas
especially in Central Newfoundland... are being highly overhunted while Dave Barker
thinks that some areas of the province have been overhunted for years, (and)
government must decrease licenses in these areas
In other concerns related to big and small game regulations, licenses and quotas:
Warren Blanchard notes that some hunters have male only
licenses, while others who have either sex licenses generally prefer to shoot a bull, and
he thinks this places excessive stress on the male moose population. Elwin Coish of
Stephenville shares this concern, arguing that too many moose licenses have been
issued in the past, especially in the bull-only category;
Cyril Rogers calls for limits to the number of big game
licenses awarded. He thinks that, in any year, only a single big game license should be
issued to any one address, and only a single big game (i.e. moose, caribou or bear)
license should be issued to any non-resident and
Peter Anstey, of the Exploits River Management
Association, notes that the snowshoe hare (rabbit) is a prime example of
over-harvesting and calls for rabbit licenses to include a limited number of tags,
while C. Ralph Dawe thinks rabbit hunting should only be caught by using snares, rather
than guns and dogs. Peter Anstey also recommends that hunting of the Spruce and Ruffled
Grouse, a bird that is as tame as a barnyard chicken, be limited to snaring.
Jed Sampson, Port au Port, calls for a reinstatement of
the shooting test for big game license qualification. Without this, he believes, new
applicants... will go into the hunt with a greater potential for wounding animals (and)
posing a danger to... other hunters... and the general public.
The Bonavista and Gander Citizens Against Privatization
considers the firearms licensing program to be one of a barrage of regulations and
restrictions for those who desire access to the outdoors, while the Citizens Outdoor
Rights Alliance sees it as another cost which contributes to Newfoundlanders being shut
out of some of their favourite outdoor pursuits.
5.3 Winter and Sunday Hunting
There is extensive discussion of both the winter moose hunt and Sunday hunting. In the
former case some, like Eric Bishop of St. Lawrence, see the extension to the hunting
season as a very sensible decision... as for the comments that moose are harassed or
chased by snowmobile, my view is that those who do so are very few... and those who do so
should be dealt with other than by penalizing the honest hunter. However, like many
intervenors, he sees a need to deal with the issue of cow moose in calf, suggesting that
after the first of December the hunt should be managed so that only bull moose be
taken.
For others, though, even this type of management initiative cannot be enough to make
the winter hunt acceptable. For Peter Anstey the moose season is open much too early
and interferes with the mating season. The recent change to extend the moose season... is
another example of mismanagement. Now we are making it legal for people to chase moose
with snowmachines. Once November begins and the animals shed their antlers, it is hard to
discern males from females. And Gene Manion of the Main River Lodge Ltd. is
concerned that this policy is frowned upon by non-residents and environmental
organizations. There does not seem to be any foundation for such a scheme other than
political appeasement.
Others are more vehement in their objections arguing, not the least, that the spectacle
of the winter hunt could negatively affect the provinces reputation:
The idea of a winter moose hunt is appalling...
Talk about bad publicity for this province... itll surpass the video of sealers
skinning still live animals. (Stan Moeller, Stephenville)
Having witnessed the results of the winter moose
hunt in our area, we have concerns about this method of managing moose stocks. (It) is a
legalized slaughter!... There has to be a better way. (Bay St. George South Area
Development Association)
This new policy has been poorly thought out and
should be reversed as soon as possible. It will be a hazard for people travelling in
winter on skis or snowmobile and, as one person is recently quoted as saying in the
Western Star... "What sport is there running down a moose in deep snow and then
shooting it from close range". I and many other people agree. This could create a
backlash much like the barbaric seal hunt. Better to stop this sooner rather than
later. (Keith Nicol, Corner Brook)
The Emerald Zone Corporation considers that issuing site specific licenses is...
a better alternative... than extending the hunting season.
There are similar differences of opinion about Sunday hunting, although it is
noteworthy that some, like Jed Sampson of Port au Port, are for winter moose hunt
extension but oppose Sunday hunting. For those who do support the Sunday hunt, it is
convenient for hunters who have difficulty finding the time to pursue their interests. And
it is also seen as bringing hunting in line with modern social trends; as Rick Bouzan puts
it: as churches remain empty and stores stay open and all business continues, why
cant I hunt on Sunday. Nothing is stopping this from becoming a reality now.
Others have concerns, most commonly about the possible conflict with other outdoor
users. Some believe such conflicts will be minimized by the different seasonal patterns of
outdoor use; for instance, Marvin A. Barnes of St. Johns thinks that the
hunting season(s) are all too short at the best of times and I do not feel permitting
Sunday hunting will in reality impact to any real extent with other seasonal activities
such as berry-picking, etc., as these... are effectively finished for the year when the
hunting season begins. But others think it will be necessary to put limits on Sunday
hunting. For example:
Peter J. King, Corner Brook, notes that: The
restriction is very inconvenient and costly to outdoor persons and retailers alike. You
can buy beer and shop on Sundays, so why not hunt. I suggest beginning Sunday hunting when
small game hunting season starts and the berry pickers are out of the woods
(Jacquelyn Handregan Scott makes a similar proposal);
B.A. Hammett, Mount Pearl, suggests that the
second half of the hunting season be made available for Sunday hunting... It would be a
reasonable compromise between those (non-hunters) who want to go outdoors and the hunters.
Further, this second half is likely to be the less pleasant (weatherwise) and therefore of
potentially reduced interest to non-hunters; and
the Irish Loop Economic Development Board recommends
that Sunday hunting should be permitted in certain areas.
Yet others note that the number of non-hunters is increasing, and their interests
getting more diverse, and that Sunday... is the only day of the week, during the
entire fall and early winter, that non-hunters can feel safe to engage in (hiking, cross
country skiing, mountain biking, kayaking, canoeing, swimming, photography, bird watching,
identifying plants, insects and animals, berry-picking, and visiting geological and
archaeological sites). (Stan Moeller)
There is, lastly, some concern about the Labrador caribou hunt, with it being important
that the recent introduction of an expanded Commercial Caribou Harvest... be handled
with kid gloves to avoid any false perceptions in the international marketplace.
(Labrador Outfitters Association Inc.)
5.4 Sportfishing and Hunting Lodges
There has already been discussion of the economic value of lodges and non-resident
fishing and hunting activity in Section 3.0. And, as was noted in Section 2.4, many
participants in the consultation view the construction of sportsfishing and hunting
lodges, and the buffer zones they are granted, as representing privatization or
commercialization. The lodges are also seen as denying local residents their traditional
access to resources:
Private fishing lodges should not be built on
river sections that the local population have historically used (Don Higdon, Corner
Brook)
Citizens of this Province will find themselves
barred off from the best salmon pools by a wealthy politically connected elite.
(Owen Myers)
It is no way fair to the resident population if
all of the better areas are dominated by the presence of commercial operations.
(David Tilley, Springdale)
The goal (of government policy) is to maximize
outfitters profit and bring in new money, no matter what the cost to the rights of the
local users of the area. (Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation)
One of the most tangible pieces of evidence that government is supporting
degradation of valued pristine space, and de facto privatization, is the clear cutting of
building lots on the banks of prime salmon pools and the erection (largely with the
support of public funds) of lodges designed to cater to high paying nonresident
anglers (Citizens Outdoor Rights Association)
These concerns were expressed both generally, and with respect to particular
developments and locations. For example, Dr. Roland Bryans and Tom Hood are both concerned
about the effects of a new lodge development on Long Pond which, in the words of the
former, will have a devastating effect on the current cabin owners enjoyment of
their recreational cabins. Others are concerned about the Humber River. Owen Myers
notes that a new outfitter lodge has been built smack on one of the best pools and
in Sir Richard Squires Park at Big Falls is the chilling sight of a new 4000 sq foot
outfitter lodge under construction 90% funded by government, while Reg Nichols of
Corner Brook condemns the construction of lodges right on salmon pools (and)
outfitting lodges practically in the suburbs of Corner Brook. Outfitters can give their
clients far better value in their (traditional) remote areas. (However, the Humber
River Model River Planning Corporation note in their brief that there is a lot of
misinformation about new lodge developments on the Humber.)
The issue here is not just the impact of lodges on rights of access. The Bonavista and
Gander Citizens Against Privatization notes that this overcommercialization of our
pristine areas means that this once peaceful setting (is) now inundated with
corporate lodges, helicopters and timberjacks. There is also concern about the
consequences for aboriginal people, leading the Labrador Metis Nation to state that
the control of rivers by outfitters, for example, will not be tolerated when our
ability to hunt, fish and use the land is impacted upon.
For some intervenors, the best way to address these issues is to stop new lodge
construction. The Bay St. George Sports Hunting & Fishing Association notes that
despite the fact that the LGL report states that there is adequate lodge and hotel
accommodations in the province... your government allows large numbers of lodge
construction to occur, while for Jed Sampson of Port au Port the fact that
presently we have an oversupply of outfitters and lodges (means) there must be no
more permits or licenses granted.
There is also concern about the buffer zones around the lodges. Bill White, Lewisporte,
notes that these zones cause over 15,000 square mile of this island (to be) under
the control of outfitting lodges as far as cottage development is concerned... I have been
informed that approximately 30 more lodges have been added to the number since last year,
another 2700 square miles... (which) would put well over half of the land that could be
used for recreational purposes under private control. Almost every prime location has been
acquired by those people.
The buffer zones policy is seen as being problematic both in and of itself, and in the
ways it is being implemented. Gary Sargent thinks it is being applied in a rather
draconian manner... I have had applications for crown leases turned down with a simple
"its within a buffer zone". Yet, no one can or will provide me with a copy
of the document nor does anyone seem to be able to explain the myriad ways its been
applied. And Dr. Bryans, writing about the new lodge on Long Pond, complains about
the inconsistent application of this policy The buffer zone... significantly
overlaps the buffer zone of (other) outfitters... How can this be? Obviously, different
standards must exist for different applicants.
But outfitters argue that buffer zones are needed to protect their long-term investment
and future prospects:
The buffer zone...presently is the only method of
protection for the outfitters operations and provides a reasonable area of isolation
and minimum conflict with others, which is vital to support their businesses. Maintaining
this buffer zone is necessary for these operations to survive. (Len Rich)
the industry must have a definite policy of
reasonable protection in order to justify a long- term expenditure of funds for
facilities... without an eight km. protection from other establishments, the outfitting
industry will not flourish and large investments will be jeopardized. The policy will not
restrict resident access and cannot be deemed to be "privatization". (Main
River Lodge Ltd.)
Gene Manion of Main River Lodge Ltd. also calls for:
a more stringent enforcement of controls within the
buffer: In some instances squatters rights have been unjustifiably used to
circumvent the buffer zone policy. Crown Lands must carefully scrutinize such applications
with proper investigation at site to ensure that remnants of occupation actually
exist; and
the government to continue to encourage
improvement and upgrading of commercial outfitting camps so as to reach "high-end
clientele" and establish an enviable reputation for this province as a quality
wilderness destination.
5.5 Parks and Reserves
A number of presentations and briefs make reference to the importance of the
provinces parks and reserves. In particular, there are calls for the province to
establish a network of parks and reserves, and to implement its systems plan for protected
areas.
In respect of the proposed network, Bruce Moores and John Michael Lannon believe that
having a network of parks and reserves throughout Newfoundland and Labrador will
help ensure the survival of all our plants and animals... A plan of action on how to
establish this network should be a priority of the Government. As well, over the last few
years, several proposed reserves have received a lot of attention - the Torngats in
Labrador, Little Grand Lake in western Newfoundland, and Ripple Pond on the Avalon. Quick
attention by Government in granting these areas full protection would be a positive
step.
Similarly, the Humber Environment Action Group recommends that the government:
Establish an adequate network of representative
protected areas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador by the year 2000; and
Maintain the integrity of areas that are currently
protected or are proposed for protection, including provincial parks, the proposed reserve
at Little Grand Lake and the proposed Torngat National Park.
Less then two per cent of our province is protected in parks and reserves. I
understand that Canada is committed to the United Nations guideline of protecting 12 per
cent of ones territory for future generations to have an opportunity to experience
wilderness ecosystems. The province seems to be going in reverse on protection... We are
one of the last jurisdictions that still has significant areas of wilderness to save and
yet we are abandoning our future generations for the almighty buck. (Stan Moeller)
The Natural History Society of Newfoundland and Labrador provides a review of
principles respecting the appropriate uses of the outdoors, including protected areas and
preserves. It goes on to call on government to implement its systems plan for protected
areas, as does Jon Lien in his brief to the Committee.
A lengthy brief by the Protected Areas Association of Newfoundland and Labrador
discusses a wide range of concerns and presents a series of recommendations respecting
government commitment, a natural area conservation strategy, marine conservation areas,
endangered species legislation and three geographical areas (Torngat Mountains National
Park, Little Grand Lake and Ripple Pond Ecological Reserve), calling for government action
to preserve these areas. The call for a Little Grand Lake reserve is supported by the
Western Newfoundland Model Forest Inc., while Keith Nicol recommends protection of the
Blow Me Down - Serpentine - Lewis Hills area. He notes that this area has been
repeatedly identified as a prime area for protection yet the government conveniently
overlooks protected area status and instead allows it to be explored for minerals.
Reflecting the concern about the privatization of provincial parks (see Section 2.4),
numerous intervenors call for the remaining parks to be kept in public hands. Others speak
of the importance of keeping the Newfoundland TRailway in public ownership. And
lengthy briefs by the Newfoundland TRailway Council and Avalon TRailway
Corporation discuss such issues as access, competing uses, and resources and budgets.
5.6 All Terrain Vehicles, Snowmobiles and Seadoos
The main themes of the discussion of all terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles and
seadoos are accessibility, conflict with other outdoor users, and negative effects on
wildlife and the environment.
Some of the discussion of accessibility focuses on the recovery of big game using ATVs
and (especially given an extended moose hunt) snowmobiles. Their use is seen as essential
if hunting is going to take place in more remote areas. For example, Eric Bishop of St.
Lawrence notes that there is no way of hunting big game on the Burin Peninsula,
other than along the highway, under the present laws and legislation. Only the permitted
use of ATVs, or an extended season to allow for snowmobile use (given limited snowmobiling
season on the Burin Peninsula), will allow hunters to hunt otherwise inaccessible
areas.
As in this case, this proposal is normally tempered by a recognition that ATV use must
be limited. Eric Bishop is of the opinion that if the extended season is not
reinstated... ATVs should be allowed for the retrieval of big game only, while for
Jacquelyn Handregan Scott there should be a system which would allow big game
hunters to use ATVs for the purpose of retrieval only.
These proposals reflect a recognition of the damage ATVs can do to the physical
environment, and especially wetlands. In further discussion of this topic, the Protected
Areas Association notes that ATVs and snowmobiles have given accessibility to, and
resulted in damage to, almost all areas of the province. And Stan Moeller thinks that the
use of ATVs should be better regulated to further reduce environmental damage, and calls
for special attention to be paid to the damage they, dirt bikes and four-wheel-drive
vehicles can do to beaches and sand dunes.
However, there are other concerns about the impacts of these machines and snowmobiles
on wildlife and the environment. David Tilley is among those concerned that snowmobiling
threatens moose in remote breeding areas. In his words: the continued encroachment
on these areas mean that fewer animals have the benefit of isolation and the entire
population is thus at greater risk. If anything, legislation should be put in place to
deter snowmobilers from using such areas for recreational pleasure. Such concerns
are also expressed with respect to the activities of outfitters, with the Main River Lodge
Ltd. expressing the opinion that many of them are continuing to breach the ATV
regulations by extensive use of these vehicles in transporting people and game in
environmentally sensitive regions.
The proliferation of ATVs in recent years has wreaked untold and often
irreparable damage on many outdoor areas of the province. It is essential that the
authorities enact and enforce regulations governing the use of such machines. In addition,
these machines have made possible access to areas which for years were remote, creating
increased pressure on wildlife both flora and fauna and removing the haven that once
enabled animals to have some relief from hunting pressure. (Town of Bay de Verde)
There is clearly tension between these positions and that of the Newfoundland and
Labrador Snowmobile Federation, which states in an extensive brief: we want, for our
members and potential tourists, what we have had for years, total accessibility to any
destinations that we so desire. The Federation is in process of developing an
Integrated Snowmobile Trail linking towns on the island portion of the province.
However, it also recognizes the need to increase and improve the regulation of activity,
proposing various refinements to the Snowmobile Act and related regulations. These types
of initiative are seen as necessary in achieving the considerable economic potential
through winter tourism: Our province, as our people, is unique. Lets ensure we
maintain this uniqueness and market ourselves as THE destination spot for snowmobilers and
get a "slice of the pie".
Another important issue is use conflicts between motorized vehicles, like ATVs and
snowmobiles, and hikers or skiers. Stan Moeller describes personal experiences of such
interactions and goes on to suggest that the Newfoundland TRailway consider having
separate lanes for motorized and non-motorized users. He also calls for strict regulation
of seadoos which can conflict with other users (e.g. swimmers and kayakers) and create
noise and other forms of pollution. The East Coast Trail Association is among other groups
concerned about the potential for conflicting use of trails, noting problems posed for its
initiative, primarily designed for hiking, by ATVs, snowmobiles and mountain bikes. And
the Avalon TRailway Corporation indicates that development of the TRailway on
the Avalon Peninsula to allow safe ATV and snowmobile use is sorely lacking.
5.7 Other Issues
The large numbers of oral and written presentations to the Committee contain a wide
range of concerns, comments, proposals and recommendations. It is not possible to include
all of these in a short consultation document; however, the following provide an
indication of the types of additional input.
Cottages: The Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited has a
number of concerns with respect to the regulation of cottage development, describing the
current system as inconsistent. The East Coast Trail Association sees the need
for a buffer zone, free of cottage development, along the trail. And Ron ODriscoll
calls for construction of commercial cottage developments. Building and maintaining of
such cottage communities contributes to local economy.
Forest Practices: The Natural History Society of
Newfoundland and Labrador calls for modifications to forest practices: We must be
prepared to leave tracts of land as mature forests to protect and preserve species, for
example the pine martin and a number of cavity nesting birds that rely on mature
forests, while C. Ralph Dawe wants all left over cuttings removed by cutting permit
holders.
Land Claims: Various primarily Labrador-based groups
call for the settlement of Aboriginal land claims. In the words of the Sandwich Bay
Watershed Management Authority, very little can be achieved unless we have answered
the vital question of land ownership. Until (it) is settled, the people and the resources
will continue to suffer. But the Labrador Outfitters Association Inc. notes
that third party interests must be addressed in negotiating land claim agreements...
there are many outfitters in Labrador which fall within the Aboriginal land claim
areas.
Appendix A1
PRESENTATIONS
Cartwright (October 13, 1998)
Churchill Falls (October 14, 1998)
Clarenville (October 5, 1998)
Gander (September 25, 1998)
Grand Falls-Windsor (September 25, 1998)
Happy Valley-Goose Bay (October 13, 1998)
Harbour Breton (September 23, 1998)
LAnse au Clair (October 15, 1998)
Labrador City-Wabush (October 14, 1998)
Marystown (October 5, 1998)
Pasadena (October 1, 1998)
Port Saunders (October 2, 1998)
Springdale (September 23, 1998)
Stephenville (September 30, 1998)
St. Anthony(October 2, 1998)
St. Johns (October 6, 1998)
Ferryland (October 19, 1998)
Placentia (October 6, 1998)
Appendix A2
BRIEFS SUBMITTED
Cartwright
Sandwich Bay Watershed
Management Authority
Judy Pardy
Battle Harbour Regional
Development Association
Yvonne Jones, M.H.A.
Cartwright-LAnse au Clair
Clarenville
Dr. Roland Bryans
Citizens Against River
Privatization
Freshwater Alexander
Bay Ecosystems Corporation (Fred Holloway)
Freshwater Alexander
Bay Ecosystems Corporation (Austin Stewart)
Doug Dalton
Gander
Gander River Management
Association
Gander Bay Indian Band
Council
Donald Blackmore
Bonavista and Gander
Citizens Against Privatization
Appleton Town Council
John Sheppard
Grand Falls-Windsor
Central Ready Mix Ltd
and Central Precast Ltd. (Bill White)
Arthur King
Exploits River
Management Association (Peter Anstey)
Jim Fancey
Dave Barker
Atlantic Quest
Corporation (Gary Sargent)
Happy Valley-Goose Bay
John and Juanita Thomas
Joe Goudie
Friends of Gander River
(Eldred Davis)
Marystown
Eric Bishop
Pasadena
Citizens Outdoor Rights
Alliance
Humber Environment
Action Group
Main River Lodge Ltd.
(Gene Manion)
Western Newfoundland
Model Forest Inc. (Dave Jennings)
Newfoundland and
Labrador Snowmobile Federation
Humber River - Model
River Planning Corporation
John Michael Lannon
College of the North Atlantic (Dr. M. A. Roy)
Newfoundland
TRailway Council
Humber Natural History
Society (Lois Bateman)
Corner Brook Pulp and
Paper
Bay of Islands Rod
& Gun Club (Gordon Wight)
Labrador outfitters
Association (Anthony Maher)
Jim Taylor
Keith Nicol
Nelson Bennett
Warren Blanchard
Don Higdon
Reg Nichols
Peter J. King
Port Saunders
Derek Biggin
Parks Canada (Chip
Bird)
Northwest Trackers
Snowmobile Club (Bryan D. Pincent)
Springdale
Emerald Zone
Corporation (Linda Brett)
David Tilley
Stephenville
The Marine &
Mountain Zone Corporation
Bay St. George South
Area Development Association
Bay St. George Sports
Hunting and Fishing Association
S. Moeller
Elwin Coish
Cyril Rogers
Jed Sampson
St. Anthony
Ten Mile Lake
Outfitters (Selwyn Genge)
St. Johns
Protected Areas
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador
Owen Myers
Newfoundland and
Labrador Wildlife Federation (Gordon E. Cooper)
Newfoundland and
Labrador Wildlife Federation (Gordon Wight)
Newfoundland and
Labrador Wildlife Federation
Salmonid Council of
Newfoundland & Labrador
Salmonid Association of
Eastern Newfoundland (Trevor Davis)
Avalon TRailway
Corporation (Loyal R. Squires)
East Coast Trail
Association
Town of Bay de Verde
(Raymond Walsh)
Natural History Society
of Newfoundland and Labrador Inc. (Allan R. Stein)
The Natural History
Society of Newfoundland and Labrador (D. H. Steele)
Jon Lien
Maura Hanrahan
Mr. B. A. Hammett
Ron ODriscoll
Len Rich
Bob Peters
Jacquelyn Handregan
Scott
Marvin A. Barnes
C. Ralph Dawe
Tom Hood
Robert Buchanan
Rick Bouzan
Ferryland
Irish Loop Regional
Economic Development Board
Chris Ryan
Other submissions
Tom Gillingham
Gene Mercer
Ronald Pomeroy
Labrador Angling
Adventures Limited (Len Rich)
Labrador Metis Nation
Newfoundland and
Labrador Per cent Environmental Alliance Inc. (Bernadette Vokey)
|